am I the only one who noticed that Petreaus sounds an awful lot like "betray us"?

No.

<http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2007/09/from-the-pen--3.html>

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Gustave Gilbert, Nurembert Diary, conversation with Hermann Goering on 18 April 1946:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

So whenever you hear the Michele Malkins and the Rush Limbaughs talk about the left (or anybody) having a lack of patriotism or exposing the country to danger, just think Hermann Goering. It works every time.

Shorter waitaminute: "I can't see the forest for all these goddam trees."

Longer waitaminute: I'm a huge fan. But how can you write a blog criticizing people for focusing on something trivial when, in doing so, you commit the same act?

When the entire MSM and the Congress focuses on a triviality to the exclusion of substantive matters, this is not a trivial matter.

What surprised me is that Petraeus's parents emigrated from the Netherlands. From his name, I also assumed he and they were Greek.

During the Renaissance, many Europeans translated their names into Latin because of the prestige of the language. Thus lots of Bauer's and Ackermann's became Agricola's. This was particularly true among the educated since the lingua franca of the European intelligentsia was Latin and almost all scientific writing (in the wider sense) was done in Latin and authors usually appended their name to their work in Latin. So one of Petraeus' male ancestors probably changed whatever the local equivalent of "Rocky" was to Petraeus.

But this is really a discussion for the Chocolate Interrobang.

Very well reasoned and very well stated. It has been pointed out before that officers in the US military do not take an oath to obey orders (as enlisted men do) but rather to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" <http://www.army.mil/CMH/faq/oaths.htm>. There is a precedent for refusing to obey an order to wage aggressive war established by the Nuremberg tribunal. Aggressive war was defined there by Justice Robert Jackson as the ultimate crime against humanity because it combines all of the other crimes. US military officers stand within their rights to refuse to obey an order to wage aggressive war.

(And I stand by what I said on the definition of terrorism.)
— ondelette

And rightly so — One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Let's face it: The Boston Tea Party of 1775 was an act of terrorism. The bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism by anyone's definition (except the government of Israel and the freedom fighters of the Irgun and the Stern Gang).